대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) C practically operated an entertainment tavern and E hotel in the building on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground, and the Defendant received and managed the income and expenditure as the above E hotel’s accounting. 2) F is the Defendant’s mother, and C is the husband of F.
3) Around November 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 130,000,00 to C with interest rate of KRW 2% per month and by April 30, 2011 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(4) On November 23, 2010, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered the loan certificate (Evidence A 1) with the borrower in order to guarantee the Plaintiff’s instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff; and (b) as seen thereafter, C paid interest on the instant loan to the Plaintiff.
On the same day, with respect to the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment G 104 Dong 1004 and 1004 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment of this case”) was completed with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 169,00,000,000, the debtor, the Defendant, and the
5) The actual owner of the instant apartment is C, and C and F actually resided in the instant apartment. 6) As C failed to repay the instant loan by April 30, 201, the repayment date, the repayment date, and the repayment period of the instant loan was extended twice.
(The term of repayment was first extended until April 30, 2012, and the phrase “the repayment date will be postponed as of April 30, 2014” of the certificate of loan (Evidence A No. 1) until April 30, 2014, and C failed to repay the instant loan by April 30, 2012, and the Defendant entered directly after April 30, 2012. As seen thereafter, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant renounced the benefit of time following the Defendant’s repayment of the instant loan as the remainder of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis for the instant apartment on August 13, 2012.” [The grounds for recognition] There was no dispute over the facts, Gap, 1, 2, and 2.